BOARD DATE: 28 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017285 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ____x____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 28 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017285 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ______________x___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 28 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017285 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states she believes an honorable discharge will be the best for her. There are more opportunities with an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant provides: * undated self-authored letter * two character-reference letters * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 2013 for a period of 4 years and 21 weeks. 3. Between 7 June 2013 and 21 August 2013, she was counseled in writing for: * missing formation on three separate occasions * losing her common access card * absent without leave (AWOL) * suspension of privileges * elimination of service 4. Her records contain a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 17 July 2013, showing her duty status changed from present for duty to AWOL on 16 July 2013. 5. Her records contain a DA Form 4187, dated 23 July 2013, showing her duty status changed from AWOL to present for duty on 22 July 2013. 6. On 8 September 2013, the applicant was notified of her pending separation for misconduct (patterns of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation  635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b. Her unit commander cited her being AWOL from 15 July 2013 through 21 July 2013 and failing to be at her appointed place of duty on 7 June 2013, 11 June 2012, and 23 July 2013 as reasons for the proposed action. 7. On 9 September 2013, the applicant acknowledged notification of the basis of the contemplated separation action being initiated against her and of the procedures and rights available to her. 8. After consulting with counsel she further acknowledged that she understood that she had less than 6 years of total active and reserve at the time of separation, that she was not entitled to have her case heard by an administrative separation board unless she is being considered for an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and that she could expect to encounter considerable prejudice in civilian life if she was issued a general discharge. She elected to submit a statement in her own behalf; however, this statement is not available for review. 9. On 10 September 2013, her intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with the issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge. 10. On 11 September 2013, the separation authority (SA) approved the applicant’s separation action. The SA directed the issuance of a general under honorable condition discharge and determined that the applicant would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. 11. On 24 September 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b with a general under honorable conditions characterization of service for a pattern of misconduct. She completed 8 months and 22 days of creditable active service. 12. On 8 May 2015, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her request for a discharge upgrade from general to honorable. 13. She provided two character-reference letters from a friend and employer attesting: * she is dependable, reliable, hard-working, conscientious, honest, peace loving, and courteous * she exhibited the potential to be a good employee 14. She provided an undated self-authored letter stating: a. Everyone makes mistakes. She didn't plan to demonstrate a pattern of misconduct and she didn't want this to happen. She wishes she completed her entire enlistment or that she never enlisted in the Army. Quitting is never an option. She is not saying she quit. She didn't plan on serving the way she did. b. There is nothing wrong with her generation, but they just need more guidance. She needed the same guidance in the Army. She hit many rough patches in the Army and she overcame them. She takes full responsibility for her actions. She is an honorable person. She is affected by this discharge. A pattern of misconduct does not reflect who she is. She is a virtuous, phenomenal, and bodacious woman. c. She made some bad choices in the Army. She served her country. She is a good person. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such were merited by the Soldier's overall record. a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. A discharge UOTHC is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial. When a Soldier is to be discharged UOTHC, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. DISCUSSION: 1. Although the applicant contends there are more opportunities with an honorable discharge, the ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of enhancing opportunities. Each case is considered on its own merits. 2. The applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights. 3. Although a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for the authority and reason for her discharge, she was given a general discharge under honorable conditions. An honorable discharge was not authorized under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017285 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017285 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2